STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION KERALA REVISION PETITION NO. SC/32/RP/29/2025 (Against the Order dated 25th October 2023 in Appeal DC/559/CC/205/2022 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kollam)

SRI.MATHEW.K.CHERIYAN PRESENT ADDRESS - MANAGING DIRECTOR, KOSAMATTAM FINANCE LTD,MARKET JUNCTION, KOTTAYAM,PIN-686 001.KOTTAYAM,KERALA.

.......Petitioner(s)

Versus LIJI PHILIP PERMANENT ADDRESS - KOTTOORKALEEKKAL MEKKU, NJAKKANAL PO OACHIRA , KOLLAM,KERALA. .......Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SRI.B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR , PRESIDENT FOR THE PETITIONER:

SRI.MATHEW.K.CHERIYAN FOR THE RESPONDENT:

LIJI PHILIP DATED: 23/07/2025

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REVISION PETITION No. 29/2025 ORDER DATED: 23.07.2025 (Against the Order in C.C.No.205/2022 on the files of DCDRC, Kollam)

PRESENT:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA : PRESIDENT KUMAR SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER SRI. K.R. RADHAKRISHNAN : MEMBER REVISION PETITIONER/OPPOSITE PARTY:

Mathew K Cherian, Managing Director, Kosamattam Finance Ltd., Market Jn, Kottayam – 686 001 (by Adv. Jolly John)

Vs.

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

Liji Philip, Kottoorkaleekkal Mekku, Njakkanal P. O., Oachira, Kollam - 690 506

O R D E R

HON’BLE JUSTICE B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR : PRESIDENT The revision petitioner is the opposite party in C.C.No.205/2022 on the files of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kollam (for short, the ‘District Commission’).

2. The revision petitioner filed I.A.No.9A/2023 in C.C. No. 205/2022, challenging the maintainability of the complaint. The District Commission as per order dated 07.05.2025 dismissed I.A.No.9A/2023 holding that the complaint is maintainable.

3. The complainant invested an amount of Rs.5,00,000/-(Rupees Five Lakh only) on 21.12.2011 as redeemable non-convertible debenture issued by the opposite party, namely, M/s Kosamattom Finance Ltd., which is a Non-Banking Financial Company (NBFC), for a period of ten years under cumulative investment scheme. The maturity date of the said investment was 21.12.2021. The amount agreed to be paid on maturity was Rs.20 lakh. However, an amount of Rs.13,48,661/-(Rupees Thirteen Lakh Forty Eight Thousand Six Hundred and Sixty One only) alone was credited to the account of the complainant by the opposite party. The complainant demanded the balance amount of Rs.6,51,339/-(Rupees Six Lakh Fifty One Thousand Three Hundred and Thirty Nine only). However, the opposite party did not respond to the said demand.

4. The notice was served on the opposite party. But, the opposite party did not incline to file any written version within the statutory period. Therefore, the opposite party was set ex-parte by the District Commission on 12.12.2022. The opposite party filed I.A.No.09/2023 on 16.01.2023 praying for setting aside the ex- parte order. I.A.No.09/2023 was dismissed by the District Commission. The opposite party also filed I.A.No.9A/2023 on 15.01.2023 praying for hearing the question of maintainability as a preliminary issue. I.A.No.9A/2023 was dismissed by the District Commission as per order dated 07.05.2025. In this revision petition, the opposite party challenges the order passed by the District Commission on I.A.No.9A/2023.

5. Heard both sides. Perused the records.

6. The revision petitioner has raised only two contentions in I.A.No.9A/2023. The first contention is that since the non-convertible debentures are not “goods”, the complainant cannot fall within the ambit of consumer as provided under Section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (‘the Act’ for short) and consequently, the present complaint is not maintainable. The second contention is with regard to the misjoinder of parties. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner has reiterated the said contentions in his argument.

7. It is not disputed that the opposite party did not file any version within the statutory period before the District Commission. Therefore, the only r